On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 07:23:29PM -0700, Richard J. Sears wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I am building out a customer that needs more than 1000Mbps of sustained bandwidth. Because of the customer equipment, etherchannel was suggested as the means to do this (it is compatible with this customers equipment).
I am running a 6509 with Dual SUP720's in IOS mode only (no cat software).
It was pointed out that there are really two different ways to configure the switch - I guess my question is which is the best (lowest overhead, etc)? Hopefully someone out there has been down this road before.
TIA
Two methods:
! interface Port-channel2 no ip address switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access ! interface GigabitEthernet7/1 no ip address switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access channel-group 2 mode on ! interface GigabitEthernet8/1 no ip address switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access channel-group 2 mode on ! interface Vlan10 description Customer_Name ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.0.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables !
And then there is this way:
! interface Port-channel2 description Customer_Name ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.0.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables ! interface GigabitEthernet7/1 description Customer_Name EtherChannel Interface #1 no ip address channel-group 2 mode on ! interface GigabitEthernet8/1 description Customer_Name EtherChannel Interface #2 no ip address channel-group 2 mode on !
I would use method #2 above.. L3 FEC produces better balancing results as it is flow based, rather than mac-based. I'm not 100% certain that using the SVI interface would not produce a proper balance, but I doubt it. Using method one I would expect only one of the links to be used. Use method 2 especially if you mean this to be a L3 handoff to the customer. Mike Sawicki (fifi@HAX.ORG)